RE:Ethics and Sustainability

JONATHAN HASKETT (jhaskett@asrr.arsusda.gov)
4 Apr 94 17:48:00 EDT

Several objections raised to my previous post about ethics and
sustainable agriculture. One objection was that I was advocating
a reductionist approach. I will plead guilty to this charge with the
proviso that reductionism should be applied where it is useful,
where it can clarify and enhance understanding. Reductionism
is a fallacy where the behavior of system is not decomposible
into constituent parts but only emerges at a given level of
organization. Conditioning in dogs cannot be observed once
the dog is dissected. However, reductionism can play a vital role
in delimiting causal relationships. Thus I contend that there is
no necessary causal relationship between agricultural sustainability
and the equitable distribution of wealth, or a bioregional
orientation, or an attitude of stewardship towards the land.
While I regard all these things as desirable, I believe that it
can be demonstrated that agricultural sustainability is separable \
from them as well as a whole host of other desirable social
concepts.

At the same time it is also possible to demonstrate that there
is a causal relationship between having an understanding of a
people's traditional cultural norms and their acceptance,
adoption, and dynamic adaptation of introduced technologies
and methods. These things only become sustainable in a social
context. Agriculture, like maize, only continues with human
intervention so the human aspect is not separable from any analysis
of sustainability. It is important to be clear when and how
this relationship comes into play. Different societies will
adopt different things or adapt the same thing differently. The
danger is that deciding a priori what the desirable social features
of sustainability are may preclude observation and understanding
when we encounter social norms which are substantially
different from our own.

Our survival depends on the sustainability of agriculture it is
therefore vital that our research be unbounded and not confined
by pre-existing assumptions. We must be free to follow the most
promising avenues of inquiry and technique, be the wholist or
reductionist.

I will attempt to answer other objections in subsequent posts.

Jonathan Haskett
jhaskett@asrr.arsusda.gov